This and the prev episodes where the first I really liked. I kep watching out of hope and fondness for Sports Night

Many of us have said we wanted to see this show have "a moment." This episode finally did...in fact it had 3 (or 4 if count Matt kissing Harriet).

1. The New Orleans tribute accompanied by O Holy Night. While I'm not one that typically gets overly emotional at tributes such as these, I couldn't help but find this scene leave me full of emotions.
2. Danny telling Jordan how he feels. The "mini-monologue" perfect. It actually reminded me a lot of some of the convos between Danny from WW and CJ. It was bold and daring, it caught Jordan off guard, and it wasn't too long or rambling.
3. Mr White's response to Jack regarding his wanting to resign over the FCC fine. It was vintage Sorkin and I couldn't help but see President Bartlet or Leo McGarry in Mr White as he encouraged his staff to stay the course, fight the good fight, and rest assured that he would do the right thing in the matter.

Now I can't wait to see where the show goes next as I think Sorkin has created a very good transition point that will allow for a paradigm shift in the directions of many of the characters.

Great episode...arguably the best so far!!!

Jordan's "asian assistant" is probably the gay-est prime time character since Jerome on Too Close for Comfort! He is absolutely NOT the father of Jordan's baby! Oh, and by the way, he's totally hot.

Regarding the DVRs not taping-check the start time you've got set. Studio 60's been starting at 10:01 (eastern) the last few weeks so Heroes can run over a minute. I had set it to start at 10, and only at that time, so it wasn't catching it. Just a possibility.

best show of the season and I thought that was not possible. I love all the fast taking, quick thinking, Jordon & Danny yes!! The New Orleans bit made me weep and the look on Harriet's when Matt kissed her and the looks between as the music played on. GREAT it does not get better than that. Can't wait to see where we go next.

When I first started reading episode reviews on TVSQUAD I was let down by how much of it was recap not review. This especially let me down on the Retro series on Sports Night, leading me to comment a few times in the hopes of filling in something I thought was missed by the reviewer. But now, I fear the reviews have gone the wrong way, entirely.

Reviews should contain very few asides and seek to be informative before witty. This is where the difference between print and internet media shines through. If your editor tells you to review a show in three column inches then you pick your words very carefully. When the last thing your limited by is space then word choice becomes less important.

Speculating on the identity of Jordan's liaison is great, but probably could've fit better in the last review. Punchlining the sketch (was there really only one) is inevitable and forgiveable. And providing a concise recap of all of the plots is laudable. But it doesn't excuse being so lost on the import of so much of the rest of the episode.

The first scene, as several commenters have stated, was some of the best writing Sorkin's done and harkened back to great scenes from WW and SN. It gets no mention in the review.

Burning through the show's recaps anachronistically would be fine if the intent was to recap all of the major events (Danny/Jordan, Matt/Harriet/The Director, Jack vs. FCC) and then skimming over the other details (Christmas on Studio 60/New Orleans musicians, the sketch etc.). We should all know by now that Sorkin loves poignant back drops to the story. Remove Christmas and you still have the three storylines very nicely written and layered. Add that one uniting layer, the back drop, and you have television gold. So write it with that in mind.

And touching so lightly on those major plot points is boggling. Why not spend a paragraph discussing how perplexing it was to see Jack get so worked up over this FCC issues? Does he, like Tom, have some sort of closeted military connection? Why not comment on the fact that the relationship between Danny and Jordan, by show chronology, has only developed in a scant two weeks? Why not comment on how what drove Matt to kiss her was not simply love/lust but jealousy issuing from the pursuit by the director/ex-boyfriend?

And then after all that, why not comment on non-story issues? Everyone acknowledges that while Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford have come into there roles quite nicely and the rest of the supporting cast have all found their voices (DL Hughley has grown infinitely as an actor) the females are still flat. Harriet's not convincing yet as the funniest thing in the world, Jordan's character has so far been completely unbelievable and even Jeannie had the most interesting thing about her (a possible relationship with Matt) stripped from her. The supporting female cast is little more than punchlines (Jeannie's covergirl persona) and diversity dressing (Lilly Rodriguez and Samantha Li, each credited with only 7 episodes and no doubt with just as many lines).

This show has flaws and strengths and in a review I want those elucidated and discussed. I don't want to know how much you agree with a fictional set of characters about the impossibility of Christmas in LA.

I'm not writing this to start a flame or anything of the sort. I've seen good writing on this blog, that's why I come back every day, but if maintaining >160 posts in a given 30 day span leads to ill-prepared writing then perhaps a careful review of assignment load or editing duties should be in order.

If everyone disagrees with me, so be it. But I'd rather start hunting for another good TV blog if this post is what we should come to expect.

Jim, I think you are wrong on the fines. When CBS was fined $3.6 million for the episode of "Without a Trace" that featured the "teen orgy" it was actually a fine on each of the 111 network affiliates in the Central and Mountain time zones that aired the episode before 10 p.m. local time, that is to say the then maximum fine of $32,500 each. Similarly the fine of $550,000 in the Janet Jackson case was based on the then current maximum of $27,500 times the 20 CBS owned and operated stations. Since then the maximum fine that can be levied has been increased to $325,000 per affiliate. The fine mentioned in the show (a bit over $73 million) would not be out of line for a network with 225 affiliates.

I really enjoyed this ep. My problem w/ "60" has been that the comedic aspects of the "show within a show" have been lackluster so far. If you are going to do a show about the inner-workings of a late-night COMEDY skit series, those skits you actually show need to be FUNNY! The only skit I really enjoyed before this ep. was the "Juliette Lewis hosts Meet the Press". Truly funny. This ep. had the Dateline "To Catch a Predator" w/ Santa Claus, and it was hilarious!!!! "60" needs more of this. This was a solid ep. in all aspects. I loved how Bradley Whitford is falling for Amanda Peet(I saw this coming a few eps. ago). And I love Harriett(no matter what some posters feel about her character)---SHE IS GREAT!!! And Steven Weber is giving the best performance of his career--HANDS DOWN!!! This is a good show. A great show. It might not connect w/ all viewers, but NBC needs to stick w/ it. Its audience will build...but NBC needs to give it a chance to succeed. NBC execs need to get out of their "instant microwaveable bowl of ratings success" mentality and nurture their brilliant choices for more than half a season, before writing them off as failed projects. STUDIO 60 ON THE SUNSET STRIP deserves another season...

David4 wrote "how was it an attack on Christmas? They said the facts, what else needs to be said? It's like agrueing over the fact that the Earth is round or not."

I forgot that everything written on the internet is as sound of scientific fact as the earth being round. I'll try and remember that before the next time I wax sceptical on anything fed to me as "fact".

A few examples that come to mind: (1) Herod the Great died (thus obviously ending his reign) in 4 BC. So it IS unlikely that Jesus was born in the year zero. That doesn't make his birth untrue though. (2) The shepherds tending their sheep in the evening does point to it being a warmer time of year, not December. In fact, no one ever claimed it was December. The early Roman Christians chose December 25th to supercede a pagan Roman holiday of the same date. It was meant to commemorate Christ's birth not pinpoint its date with accuracy. In no account of scripture is season even mentioned. (3) The comet explanation is absolutely ludicrous. If you want to say that you think they were making the whole star thing up I'll give you more respect than if you believe the comet scenario. The Magi saw the "star" in the east before traveling to Jerusalem to meet with Herod. Then they saw it again on their departure from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. Really slow moving comet if you ask me.

All I'm saying is its easier to start with a preconceived conclusion and try to gather facts to support it than it is to do an exhaustive study of all the "facts" (be they internet based or not) and arrive at an UNBIASED result. I actually wasn't trying to argue or agrue, all I was saying was some of the rant was a bit misleading. I like the show, but most rational people would have to admit it is a bit one sided at times.

The Nazi Santa is based on a real controversy in Germany. The story has been on the English version of de Speigel for a while now at http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,451645,00.html

I bet the writers found it there.